The case is before the Authority on a negotiability appeal
filed by the Union under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and
involves five proposals.

Proposals 1 and 5, which require management to provide
certain safety clothing and equipment to employees who operate
motorcycles on the facility, are nonnegotiable. Proposal 2,
which requires that the Agency provide storage containers for
the motorcycle safety equipment and that the Agency be
responsible for the safekeeping and maintenance of the
equipment, is negotiable except for that portion which requires
management to maintain the equipment. Proposal 3, which
requires the Agency to provide facilities for employees to
change into and out of the required protective clothing, is
nonnegotiable. Proposal 4, which requires the Agency to place
employees in a paid status while they are changing into and out
of the required protective clothing, is nonnegotiable.

II. Procedural Issues

The Agency asserts that the Union's petition for review
does not comply with 5 C.F.R. § 2424.4(a)(1) because it "does
not contain the express language which the union sought to
negotiate with the agency and which the agency declared
nonnegotiable." Statement of Position at 1. The Agency claims
that the proposals in the petition for review are similar, but
not identical, to the proposals the Agency previously declared
nonnegotiable. In particular, the Agency argues that Proposal
2 has been modified to include a new provision which provides
that "management will be responsible for the safekeeping and
maintenance of required motorcycle equipment." Id. Therefore,
the Agency asserts that the Union's negotiability appeal is
deficient and should be dismissed. The Agency has, however,
submitted arguments concerning both sets of proposals, and with
one exception, has declared both sets to be nonnegotiable.

We have reviewed both sets of proposals and, with the
exception of the second part of Proposal 2, find that the
proposals declared nonnegotiable by the Agency are not
substantively different from the proposals in the Union's
petition for review. Instead, the latter proposals are merely
a restatement of the earlier proposals. Accordingly, we reject
the Agency's request that the petition be dismissed. In
addition, although Proposal 2, as modified, differs from the
proposal declared nonnegotiable by the Agency, the Agency has
fully expressed its position on that part of the proposal.

As the proposals are not different in substance and as
both parties have fully expressed their positions on them, we
find that the petition for review is properly before us. SeeAmerican Federation of Government Employees, Local 2429 and
U.S. Department of the Air Force, Headquarters Space Systems
Division, Los Angeles, California, 38 FLRA 1469, 1471 (1991)
(second proposal held to be a restatement of an earlier
proposal and properly before the Agency). CompareAmerican
Federation of Government Employees, Department of Education
Council of Locals and U.S. Department of Education, 36 FLRA
130, 137 (1990) (proposal held to be substantively different
from proposal declared nonnegotiable and not properly before
the Authority).

III. Background

The proposals in this case were submitted in response to
an Agency decision to require all motorcycle riders on the
base, including bargaining unit employees, to wear or use
certain motorcycle safety clothing and equipment. Although
helmets, eye protection, and hard-soled shoes had previously
been mandated, the additional clothing required by the changes
included long-sleeved shirts or jackets, long-legged trousers,
full-finger gloves, and yellow or orange vests with
retro-reflective strips. In addition, the changes required
that all motorcycles be equipped with two rear-view mirrors.

IV. The Proposals

Proposal 1

All motorcycle protective clothing that is
required, except a helmet, will be provided by
Mare Island Naval Shipyard for use of the
employees at no cost to them. The employee will
provide the required helmet.

Proposal 2

The shipyard will provide storage containers at
the main gates for the motorcycle safety
equipment and will be responsible for its
safekeeping and maintenance.

Proposal 3

The shipyard will provide facilities for the
employees use to change into or out of the
required additional clothing.

Proposal 4

The employees are to be in a paid status while
changing into or out of the motorcycle safety
equipment by the Navy before or after their
normally assigned work hours.

Proposal 5

The shipyard will provide and install the second
rear view mirror that is required on the
employee's motorcycle if the motorcycle is
equipped with only one rear view mirror.

V. Positions of the Parties

A. The Agency

The Agency contends that Proposals 1 and 5 are
contrary to 29 U.S.C. § 668(a), 5 U.S.C. § 7903, and
certain decisions of the Comptroller General because they
require the Agency to expend appropriated funds for
protective equipment which is "not required for the
employee's protection in the performance of his or her
duties." Statement of Position at 4. The Agency
maintains that Proposal 1 is "identical in all material
respects" to the proposals held nonnegotiable in Federal
Employees Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO and Department of
the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California,
30 FLRA 275 (1987). Id. at 2.

With respect to Proposal 2, the Agency maintains
that being required to provide storage facilities "at the
gates" in